It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[Forbin]

Question for those that care not for the remastered episodes:
Which is worse- CGIing Original Trek, or the JJPrise design?

JJprise is crap, but it's a reboot and its own thing and nothing to do with TOS.

How they remade the TOS f/x isn't a complet

e write-off, but it's botched.

That "crap" got a Writers Guild nomination, Producers Guild of America Award nom, National Board of Review award top 10, Producers Guild of America Awards nomination, Hugo nomination, ST's first Grammy and many others in every phase of production. You may not think its "Star Trek" but its a respected movie in the industry, with crtitics, and yes..most fans.

In fact, it IS an alternate history of TOS, but now the dominant one...TOS is another alternate history.

An extensive list of all the ST09 awards. It'll take awhile to read.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

We were talking about the spaceship, not the movie.

 

[Forbin]

JJprise is crap, but it's a reboot and its own thing and nothing to do with TOS.

How they remade the TOS f/x isn't a complet

e write-off, but it's botched.

That "crap" got a Writers Guild nomination, Producers Guild of America Award nom, National Board of Review award top 10, Producers Guild of America Awards nomination, Hugo nomination, ST's first Grammy and many others in every phase of production. You may not think its "Star Trek" but its a respected movie in the industry, with crtitics, and yes..most fans.

In fact, it IS an alternate history of TOS, but now the dominant one...TOS is another alternate history.

An extensive list of all the ST09 awards. It'll take awhile to read.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

Whoop-dee-doo.

Indeed. The meanings of awards are debateable - I recall The Sopranos sweeping the emmies every year, even though the show had gone to crap and MUCH worthier actors were passed over. For god's sake, Edie Falco got an emmy for milling about the Sopranos' kitchen for a few episodes the year Amber Tamblin was, IMHO, turning in the best performances of the season on Joan of Arcadia!

 

[Warped9]

^^ It's no secret I don't like AbramsTrek. Even as a reboot I think they got so much wrong. I don't mean wrong in the sense of consistency with TOS, I mean wrong as a film and reboot within its own context, Nothing in it makes any sense and the whole thing is one honking big logic flaw built on endless logic flaws. But the film is a reboot and has nothing to do with TOS. The JJprise is merely a part of that. As such I can dismiss it as irrelevant.

TOS-R is something else. The new f/x try to create the impression that this is the way it was always supposed to be. To that end I take exception to many of the choices made. Not all, but many. If they had gone the route of trying to enhance the original f/x shots with something that still looked authentic and like state-of-the-art 1960's feature film f/x then I'd likely be more favourable towards it. And this includes considering what could and might not have been possible with camera work of the time. The thing is when you make this argument many people don't seem to get what we're trying to say. They're assuming f/x shots merely a bit cleaner than the originals rather than considering examples such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet Of The Apes, Fantastic Voyage, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea (the film) and Forbidden Planet. Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) and Star Wars (1977) aren't that much more advanced than what could have been done a decade earlier. It's really more a matter of a feature film's scale and available time and resource as compared to a weekly television series.

But they chose not to do that.

How someone views the new f/x depends much on one's perspective. When I look at the f/x of Forbidden Planet I'm can see how it doesn't look like what we'd do today, but I can also appreciate how well it stands up even after five decades. I appreciate it even more when I consider what they had to work with to get the results they got.

When I consider the TOS Enterprise filming miniature and how it was photographed I conclude that it isn't far off the mark of what it ideally should be for the time. It should have been a complete miniature all around and the lighting could have been less intense, and that would have been possible with state-of-the-art f/x resources of the era, but just not for television. Also the model could have been shown moving more smoothly or more specifically the camera movement would have been smoother. To that end I would have recreated many of the original shots, but with better lighting, detail and motion. The only time I'd change a shot is when the original isn't consistent with the action and story at the given moment.

I can accept inserting a new shot--such as the records of Dehner and Mitchell being flashed on Spock's overhead screen--to be better aligned in WNMHGB. But I don't see at as necessary to change the chronometer in "The Corbomite Maneuver." Adding a little more depth and perspective to many of the original matte paintings isn't a bad thing. Even adding some motion of people and vehicles in the distance is credible because some of that could have been done in the '60s. Hell, stuff like that has been done in films as far back as Metropolis and Things To Come. But I wouldn't have added a visible beam to Scotty's phaser in "The Naked Time" or sound f/x to the phaser bursts seen in "Balance Of Terror" (and, yes, I know that was added when the series was remastered and long before TOS-R).

This debate will continue to go round-and-round partly because I feel that many of those who love the new f/x can't seem to grasp the distinctions the critics are trying make.

 

[buckeyenation]

It's ironic that fans of a tv show about the future would object to making it look more futuristic.

I am fortunate that my Michigan education has led me to be able to appreciate art on more than one level. There is futurism, yes. And there is a '60s production ethos which should be respected. I reject your evil Ohio simplicity. "Both/and," not "either/or."

How does someone get a Michigan grad off their front porch? Pay him the ten bucks for the pizza!

 

[doubleohfive]

^^ It's no secret I don't like AbramsTrek. Even as a reboot I think they got so much wrong. I don't mean wrong in the sense of consistency with TOS, I mean wrong as a film and reboot within its own context, Nothing in it makes any sense and the whole thing is one honking big logic flaw built on endless logic flaws. But the film is a reboot and has nothing to do with TOS. The JJprise is merely a part of that. As such I can dismiss it as irrelevant.

TOS-R is something else. The new f/x try to create the impression that this is the way it was always supposed to be. To that end I take exception to many of the choices made. Not all, but many. If they had gone the route of trying to enhance the original f/x shots with something that still looked authentic and like state-of-the-art 1960's feature film f/x then I'd likely be more favourable towards it. And this includes considering what could and might not have been possible with camera work of the time. The thing is when you make this argument many people don't seem to get what we're trying to say. They're assuming f/x shots merely a bit cleaner than the originals rather than considering examples such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet Of The Apes, Fantastic Voyage, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea (the film) and Forbidden Planet. Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) and Star Wars (1977) aren't that much more advanced than what could have been done a decade earlier. It's really more a matter of a feature film's scale and available time and resource as compared to a weekly television series.

But they chose not to do that.

How someone views the new f/x depends much on one's perspective. When I look at the f/x of Forbidden Planet I'm can see how it doesn't look like what we'd do today, but I can also appreciate how well it stands up even after five decades. I appreciate it even more when I consider what they had to work with to get the results they got.

When I consider the TOS Enterprise filming miniature and how it was photographed I conclude that it isn't far off the mark of what it ideally should be for the time. It should have been a complete miniature all around and the lighting could have been less intense, and that would have been possible with state-of-the-art f/x resources of the era, but just not for television. Also the model could have been shown moving more smoothly or more specifically the camera movement would have been smoother. To that end I would have recreated many of the original shots, but with better lighting, detail and motion. The only time I'd change a shot is when the original isn't consistent with the action and story at the given moment.

I can accept inserting a new shot--such as the records of Dehner and Mitchell being flashed on Spock's overhead screen--to be better aligned in WNMHGB. But I don't see at as necessary to change the chronometer in "The Corbomite Maneuver." Adding a little more depth and perspective to many of the original matte paintings isn't a bad thing. Even adding some motion of people and vehicles in the distance is credible because some of that could have been done in the '60s. Hell, stuff like that has been done in films as far back as Metropolis and Things To Come. But I wouldn't have added a visible beam to Scotty's phaser in "The Naked Time" or sound f/x to the phaser bursts seen in "Balance Of Terror" (and, yes, I know that was added when the series was remastered and long before TOS-R).

This debate will continue to go round-and-round partly because I feel that many of those who love the new f/x can't seem to grasp the distinctions the critics are trying make.

Again I ask ... SO WHAT?

The original series is still available to the public. The Blu-Rays contain both the original editions *and* the Remastered versions. Is it really so bad that the Remastered editions exist? I mean, it's one thing to hold TOS up above and beyond everything else; it's quite another to constantly bemoan the existence of the Remastereds, when clearly there's an audience for them, much like there's been a (large) audience for the 2009 film.

I'm not trying to stifle constructive criticism -- you make some excellent points in the above post -- I'm just trying to understand why it's such a huge issue when the original editions are still available to the viewing public.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Bluntly, I see it as ignorant and disrespectful of the original artistry. I look at it in much the same way as I do contemporary rap and hip-hop that steals riffs of proven music merely to surround it with crap. And all because they don't have enough talent to create something of their own.

 

[BillJ]

This debate will continue to go round-and-round partly because I feel that many of those who love the new f/x can't seem to grasp the distinctions the critics are trying make.

Does that include Bob Justman who is on record as having liked the Remastering effort?

 

[Warped9]

This debate will continue to go round-and-round partly because I feel that many of those who love the new f/x can't seem to grasp the distinctions the critics are trying make.

Does that include Bob Justman who is on record as having liked the Remastering effort?

Well bully for him. I can respect the man without automatically having to agree with him.

 

[doubleohfive]

^^ Bluntly, I see it as ignorant and disrespectful of the original artistry. I look at it in much the same way as I do contemporary rap and hip-hop that steals riffs of proven music merely to surround it with crap. And all because they don't have enough talent to create something of their own.

This is where we will have to disagree. While I certainly do not mean to censor your opinion, it is also just that -- an opinion, as mine is.

My opinion is that this is an awful small thing to get so bent out of shape over. My opinion is that while rap or hip-hop are not my favorite styles of music, there's still enough value to some of each that make their existence worthwhile.

My further opinion would be that it is wholly egotistical and quite closed-minded to imply or suggest (as you just did) that simply because you view the Remastered Episodes as "crap," it automatically means that those behind the scenes creating said Remastered Episodes have done so "because they don't have enough talent to create something of their own."

That's quite narrow-minded of you, Warped9, and putting aside the question of artistic merit, completely ignores the fact that Hollywood is a business first and that these professionals --and that's what they are, professionals-- were just doing their job. How is what they've done ignorant or disrespectful? This isn't a situation where outside mitigating cirucmustances have locked away the original episodes from the public light, they're still out there.

I don't particularly care for Stargate Universe. In my opinion, it's SyFy's money-grabbing attempt to mimic the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, which I loved. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate that it does have an audience, and one that does like it, or that I don't understand that it exists largely due to business reasons versus creative.

But, to each his own.

 

[Gojira]

I think this debate will continue as long as one side thinks the other side is wrong for their opinions.

I happen to love the remastered versions and I am a very long time fan who watched the series in the early 70s in rerun. But I am also a special effects junkie and I had been longing and hoping for them to update the special effects ever since the early 1980s. For me this is a dream come true.

But that's me.

I do recognize that other people feel differently and for reasons that are equally valid for them as my reasons for liking it are valid for me.

The positive thing is the original versions and the remastered versions are available for each side of the argument to enjoy.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Bluntly, I see it as ignorant and disrespectful of the original artistry. I look at it in much the same way as I do contemporary rap and hip-hop that steals riffs of proven music merely to surround it with crap. And all because they don't have enough talent to create something of their own.

This is where we will have to disagree. While I certainly do not mean to censor your opinion, it is also just that -- an opinion, as mine is.

My opinion is that this is an awful small thing to get so bent out of shape over. My opinion is that while rap or hip-hop are not my favorite styles of music, there's still enough value to some of each that make their existence worthwhile.

My further opinion would be that it is wholly egotistical and quite closed-minded to imply or suggest (as you just did) that simply because you view the Remastered Episodes as "crap," it automatically means that those behind the scenes creating said Remastered Episodes have done so "because they don't have enough talent to create something of their own."

That's quite narrow-minded of you, Warped9, and putting aside the question of artistic merit, completely ignores the fact that Hollywood is a business first and that these professionals --and that's what they are, professionals-- were just doing their job. How is what they've done ignorant or disrespectful? This isn't a situation where outside mitigating cirucmustances have locked away the original episodes from the public light, they're still out there.

I don't particularly care for Stargate Universe. In my opinion, it's SyFy's money-grabbing attempt to mimic the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, which I loved. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate that it does have an audience, and one that does like it, or that I don't understand that it exists largely due to business reasons versus creative.

But, to each his own.

I don't think you got the essence of my post. I was asked what's the big deal.

I didn't say TOS-R was crap. I essentially said that I dislike today's music that takes riffs of proven older songs and surrounds it with endless repetitive crap.

Technically the new f/x of TOS-R are good enough in of themselves. But I think they're aesthetically wrong for TOS.

 

[Chrisisall]

I happen to love the remastered versions and I am a very long time fan who watched the series in the early 70s in rerun. But I am also a special effects junkie and I had been longing and hoping for them to update the special effects ever since the early 1980s. For me this is a dream come true.

But that's me.

Change 70's to 60's and that's me too.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Do those who object to the remastered versions do so because they don't like the quality of the remastered and think they could have done a better job or do they simply object to TOS being touched at all and feel the original effects are crucial to their enjoyment of it?

As I've pointed out in long form upthread, I don't mind the new effects especially if they actually make a positive difference to the story itself (Doomsday Machine, Tomorrow is Yesterday), and since they aren't made to replace the original versions, and exist as an updated alternative. I have no problem with the old effects for the most part having grown up with them. I can, and do, watch every TV show and movie in context with the times they are made. I never look at an old film and say "what crappy effects, they totally pull me from the story." My brain says "wow, that's pretty ambitious for the era" or it says nothing and just enjoys. Some shots on Star Trek are really amazing in ambition and execution considering the era and budget. That respect keeps me from looking at the product in a negative light.

However, I watch the original and the new versions, and am happy I have the choice. I also watch the laserdisc prints because of how the lower resolution hides everything HD exposes, as well as having the original sound mix (which most of the Blu-Ray's do not have regardless of what Paramount says).

As long as the originals versions remain available to watch as I choose, I have no problem.

And yes, I know 98% of the population will look at the next FX and say it's an improvement. But I've always been one to respect the original intent and efforts of the artists even though the new effects and prints are technically better and more suited for HD viewing. To me it's like removing the casual racism from a Mark Twain book because people today might not appreciate the context.

 

[JarodRussell]

To me it's like removing the casual racism from a Mark Twain book because people today might not appreciate the context.

I think it's more like reprinting them on better paper and, for example, an easier readable font. The remade VFX don't change anything about the actual content of the episode.

 

[Ssosmcin]

To me it's like removing the casual racism from a Mark Twain book because people today might not appreciate the context.

I think it's more like reprinting them on better paper and, for example, an easier readable font. The remade VFX don't change anything about the actual content of the episode.

You can remove the racism and leave the story intact, just changing the impact of certain parts. A couple of episodes are changed by the effects, particularly when the creators of the new FX don't accurately represent the intention of the story. There aren't a lot of them, but some can be found. In a thread about The Doomsday Machine redo, I listed a few.

 

[scotpens]

To me it's like removing the casual racism from a Mark Twain book because people today might not appreciate the context.

I think it's more like reprinting them on better paper and, for example, an easier readable font. The remade VFX don't change anything about the actual content of the episode.

I think both of those analogies are a little off. Here's my take:

As a child, I read the original editions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland with those wonderful engravings by John Tenniel, and Winnie-the-Pooh with Ernest Shepard's simple line drawings. Later editions of those books have been illustrated by other artists. Maybe some of those illustrations are technically superior to the originals. Maybe today's young readers can relate to them better. But they just don't smell right, if you know what I mean.

 

[Chrisisall]

I think both of those analogies are a little off. Here's my take:

As a child, I read the original editions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland with those wonderful engravings by John Tenniel, and Winnie-the-Pooh with Ernest Shepard's simple line drawings. Later editions of those books have been illustrated by other artists. Maybe some of those illustrations are technically superior to the originals. Maybe today's young readers can relate to them better. But they just don't smell right, if you know what I mean.

And here's MY take:

It's like if you took an old show with great acting & writing but cruddy FX by today's standards, and replaced said questionable FX with better overall CGI to keep it current in the hearts & minds of old & new audiences, while respecting the original material enough not to George Lucas it into the Phantom Zone.

 

[Chrisisall]

Oh, and everyone look at this:
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs/NewVsOldTrek.jpg

 

[Warped9]

^^ Except for the beams the original looks like something with mass actually there while the new image looks like an obvious animation.

 

[Chrisisall]

^^ Except for the beams the original looks like something with mass actually there while the new image looks like an obvious animation.

Oh Warped, you must be kinda.... er...warped... to see that in these images. Seriously, SO much artistry went into the remastered E, especially in this example.
Look, I generally *hate* CGI nonsense myself, but when it's done RIGHT, it's great.

Oh crud, am I gonna get a warning for my behaviour here....?

Joke, peeps, joke. From a warped individual hisself.